AGGARWAL AGENCIES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 1034/2007 wherein M/s Aggarwal Agencies is the petitioner and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, are the Respondents, and Revision Petition No. 1035/2007 in which M/s Fateh Chand Vinod Kumar is the petitioner and United India Insurance Company and another, are the respondents, have been filed against the single order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission" in Appeal Nos. 1397/2004 and 1398/2004. Since both revision petitions are related to the same incident in which the respondents are also common, they are being disposed of by this common, they are being disposed of by this single order.

(2.) The facts of the case are the petitioners had taken money in transit insurance policies for the safety of their firms from the respondent Insurance Company for Rs.3,00,00,000 each which were valid from 31.3.2000 to 30.3.2001. On 13.11.2000, one Mr. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal, Partner of Petitioner in R.P. No. 1035/2007 was carrying Ps.5,31,000 out which Rs.4,31,000 belonged to Petitioner's firm (M/s. Fateh Chand Vinod Kumar) and Rs. 1,00,000 to his wife's firm M/s. Aggarwal Agencies i.e. Petitioner in R.P. 1034/2007, for depositing the same in the Bank of India when some miscreants snatched the above amount from him. He immediately lodged an FIR on the same date and the police recovered Rs. 2,21,000 of this amount which is also subsequently returned under a Court order. However, the rest of the money including Rs. 1,00,000 which belonged to M/s. Aggarwal Agencies (Petitioner in R.P. No. 1034/2007) could not be recovered because of which claims were filed for Rs. 1,00,000 by M/s Aggarwal Agencies and for the remaining amount of Rs. 2,10,000 by M/s Fateh Chand Vinod Kumar. Respondent/ Insurance Company rejected both the claims. So far as the claim for Rs.1,00,000 filed by M/s Aggarwal Agencies was concerned, the same was repudiated on the ground that Mr. Mukesh Kumar Aggarwal was not an authorized person to carry this amount under the Money-in-Transit Insurance Policy as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The claim of M/s Fateh Chand Vinod Kumar in R.P.No. 1035/2007 was rejected primarily on the ground that on the date of the incident i.e. 13.11.2000, the amount of Rs.3,00.00,000 had been exceeded by Rs. 19,10,066 and therefore, the claim was not admissible.

(3.) Aggrieved by the repudiation of their claims, both parties filed complaints before the District Forum which allowed the same and directed the Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Petitioner (in RP No. 1034/2007) Rs.1,00,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.6.2001 and Rs.1,000 as litigation cost and Rs.2,10,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 1.6.2004 and Rs.1,000 as litigation cost to the Petitioner R.P. No. 1035/2007.